ThinkingAfield.org

Colorado and Denver officials have filed responses opposing FPC’s motion for a preliminary injunction in Gene Hoffman v. City and County of Denver, defending a scheme of overlapping state and local restrictions that effectively prohibits peaceable visitors from carrying firearms for self-defense.

In their November 11 filings, the defendants attempt to defend their unconstitutional carry restrictions by pointing fingers at each other and asking the court to ignore the combined effect of their laws. Colorado argues that its laws permit open carry, conveniently ignoring Denver’s prohibition on open carry. Denver, meanwhile, claims that FPC member and plaintiff Gene Hoffman’s non-Colorado carry permits authorize him to carry concealed, even though Colorado refuses to recognize those permits for a California resident.

Denver also points to an exception for people with “valid authorization from the city,” supported by a declaration from its police chief stating that he would have considered a request from Hoffman. But the possibility of receiving special permission from city officials is not a substitute for the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Nor does an exception for transporting a handgun in a vehicle restore the ability to carry for self-defense while going about ordinary daily life.

“Colorado and Denver want everyone to ignore what their laws actually do. Colorado points to open carry, knowing Denver bans it. Denver points to concealed carry, knowing Colorado won’t recognize the permits held by peaceable visitors. Their entire defense amounts to ‘Pay no attention to the gun ban behind the curtain,'” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “But this isn’t Oz, and the Constitution isn’t an illusion. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a response brief with the Supreme Court in Viramontes v. Cook County responding to Cook County’s effort to moot the case.

In late October, the lead plaintiff in SAF’s landmark “assault weapons” ban case, Mr. Viramontes, asked to be dismissed from the case. Following that request, Cook County filed a brief with the Supreme Court suggesting the case should be mooted and dismissed. Today, SAF and its partners replied to Cook County and explained to the Court why the case should continue.

This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear SAF’s two cases – Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins – challenging bans on commonly owned rifles, including the AR-15, in both Cook County, Ill., and Connecticut. Originally filed in 2021, Viramontes challenges Cook County’s ban on many commonly owned modern firearms, which was the precursor for the nearly identical statewide ban passed by the Illinois legislature. In Grant, SAF is challenging Connecticut’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles – both by name and by feature set.

“There’s every reason this case can and should continue,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We fully expect the Court to agree with our position on Viramontes, but regardless of the Court’s decision, this issue will be heard. SAF has a second case – Grant v. Higgins – that was also granted cert by the Supreme Court so no matter what the Court decides on Viramontes, we will still have the opportunity to present our case to the Justices on Dec. 2.”

SAF is joined in Viramontes by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens and is joined in Grant by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens. Oral arguments for both cases are set for Wednesday, Dec. 2.

“We’re disappointed to have to file this brief at this juncture, but we will still be in the courtroom on Dec. 2 arguing against this unconstitutional ban, whether in Viramontes or our second case, Grant,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. Read more